Posts Tagged ‘BBC’

What’s the story? Carole Thatcher, member of a team of roving reporters on The One Show, was sacked by the BBC yesterday for describing an unnamed tennis player as a ‘golliwog’.

You have eyes and ears; you have not spent the last few days in a coma; therefore you know all about it already – n’est-ce pas?

If not, the Guardian’s Organ Grinder blog has an excellent round-up of the best of the comment and coverage (here!)

The cool kids are doing it; and by doing it I mean weighing in with their opinions with the gusto of a champion jockey weighing in the night before a big race, anticipating the blow-out meal he’ll be able to gorge himself silly on in less than 24 hours time; so I’m going to do it too. Hold on to your stomachs.

Most of Carole Thatcher’s agent’s defence, and the point papers like the Telegraph are using to justify their defence of her, centres around the assertion that her use of the word was not intended as racist.

‘Golliwog’ is both a derogatory word meant to describe a black person and a cartoon character that was much-loved throughout most of the 20th century. When/if you use the word, both meanings are in play. A golliwog is both a cartoon character that awakens nostalgia in those old enough to remember when they were on our screens, and a racist caricature.

If you watch an old kids TV show and see a golliwog, you appreciate that they do entertain and delight, like any other cartoon character that appears on the show. At the same time you do feel a bit uncomfortable, because the characterisation of a golliwog is inherently racist. Only a blockhead would fail to notice that.

Carole Thatcher should have been aware (let’s hope that she is now aware) that a golliwog isn’t just a cartoon character, and that describing somebody as a golliwog is not the same saying “Oh, he looks a bit like that one with the hoover for a nose off the Teletubbies.”

Carole’s remark was made off-air, in The One Show’s green room, during a conversation about the Australian Open. Many papers have reported that the tennis player described as a ‘golliwog’ by Thatcher was Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, but this has yet to be confirmed, and the off-the-cuff, casual nature of the alleged conversation means that it is unlikely there will ever be a definitive version of events.

I think that the BBC was right to pick up on the fact that a reporter who exhibits an inability to appreciate the complex feelings that the word ‘golliwog’ provokes needs to be sat down and talked to, even if the gaffe was made in private.

Perhaps if she had been in different company the issue would never have come to light, bu as it happened the people she was speaking to at the time (Adrian Chiles and Jo Brand, according to the nationals) were offended enough not just by the use of the word, I sense, but the jokey, casual nature of its use, to tattle.

Rather than sacking Carole Thatcher, perhaps the BBC should have commissioned a doc on the history of the ‘golliwog’ character and its place in society, asked her to front it, and in the process allowed her the opportunity to confront her own ignorance and lack of sensitivity. I don’t think the word as an adjective has any place in our modern vocabulary.

As for golliwog toys: they are of an era. Some people might like them, many children might like them, and long may they be free to like them, as long as they do not underestimate them. Let it be understood – golliwogs are not merely child’s play.

Over the weekend, the BBC took the decision not to broadcast a Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) appeal for the people of Gaza, a decision which was eventually (after some dallying) copied by Sky.

Why? Because they both want to be seen as being impartial. In their view, showing an appeal for aid to help those suffering in Gaza would have threatened the way people perceived their coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is likely to remain on our screens and in the papers for many years to come.

When you report the news, you need people to trust what you say and value the information you provide. ‘Hard’ news is a product, and accuracy, credibility, objectivity and speed sells. You cannot be seen taking backhanders or skewing the news to favour a political party or organisation, because the audience will not take you seriously.

However, I fail to see how broadcasting the DEC’s Gazan aid appeal would have compromised the journalistic integrity of the BBC or Sky. I can’t help but feel that all their bleating about impartiality was a smokescreen, concealing the real reason they chose not to screen the appeal.

You simply don’t confuse the actions of a person raising awareness of a humanitarian crisis with the actions of a person supporting a terrorist organisation. (Unless you are Hamas.)

Aid appeals aren’t news, and though the situations that bring about the need for aid tend to be political, suffering people are beyond politics. You see a man with no clothes. You give him clothes. End of.

Though the BBC’s and Sky’s efforts to bring people impartial, fair and balanced news to us from the Middle East must continue, they should not close their eyes to news that they fear might make them seem biased. Gazan casualties of the most recent episode of this bloody, chaotic battle outnumber Israeli casualties. The Gazan people are in dire need of aid, teetering on the brink of a humanitarian crisis, while the Israeli people are not teetering on the brink of a humanitarian crisis. Because Israel and Palestine are in conflict, saying that could imply certain things about the political situation, but you can’t shy away from the facts, even if they make uncomfortable reading or raise complicated questions.

Impartiality in this instance is an excuse to disengage from the knotty, tortuous progress of the Israel-Palestine conflict.